* * *

Read the article. It's aggressive growth chokes out other plants and creates a fire hazard that isn't present with natives.

So fire is the issue? That’s the thing that we can be 100% certain is definite bad news?

The redwoods would have to severely contest that idea.

> The redwoods would have to severely contest that idea.

WTF does that even mean?

Too bad you can’t grow redwoods in the desert I guess?

Please provide a reference to the research discovering that wildfires are a necessarily “bad thing” in deserts across bio-geologic timescales.

The onus is, without a doubt, on you to provide research supporting your initial claims here.

Also, “State of Jefferson.” snicker

Which claim do you consider unsubstantiated?

If a fire burns down your house, it's ok because it doesn't matter on bio-geologic timescales, right?

You're the one bringing the idea of bio-geologic timescales to an issue that is having an impact right now.

Yes, my house matters not at all, on any timescale.

Even less because I’m homeless.

Edit: the sequestration of land for the purpose of solely human habitation is the #1 most negatively impactful thing to the Natural order a person can do on this earth. It’s legitimately a bit hilarious to be chided by people who live in quarter acre sterile enclaves about the negative impacts of humanity on the environment while I live nomadically in wilderness areas.

HN comments section will be the death of me.

There could be an asteroid impact and someone would be jocularly arguing that asteroids are neither good nor bad, and that being sad about it is woke nonsense, and that the asteroid is winning in the marketplace of ideas, or is full of iridium or some other valued metal, and is therefore a net boon to human populations in several million years (if any) who could, after all, make cool swords out of its ore.

The absolute dissociation from anything like a tender, ecologically connected mindset is laughable until you remember that the people speaking are all mostly making six figures and are, for better or worse, our generation's elite.

This plant is choking out whole ecosystems. Yes, there are (mathematical!) measures of genetic diversity; they are trending down; this is bad because it destabilizes the food web.

Remember food? You like food, right? This is bad for the food.

> Yes, there are (mathematical!) measures of genetic diversity; they are trending down

Mathematical models of natural behaviors are, without exception, time-local. The net benefit on any timescales that actually matter have yet to be seen.

> Remember food? You like food, right? This is bad for the food.

Maybe I’ll starve. Maybe all of humanity will starve. Only one thing is certain: something else will come along to fill our niche.

<comment removed - other person not at all worth engaging>

Edit: ha, you go for the ad-hominem, can’t even manage to pull it off, then blame it on me.

What an incredibly honest way of formulating a scientific argument.

> <comment removed - other person not at all worth engaging>

Wise human. I made the same decision.

HN Comments section is endlessly frustrating, but is also, as my meditation coach always used to say, the perfect teacher. Sometimes an argument is won, but the interlocutor fails to notice. In these cases, no matter how frustrating, the argument is still won. While tempting, nothing is gained by explaining to them the interlocutor that they've lost; the not-noticing is itself the unfakeable signal of the fact.

This orange hellsite is a masterclass in discourse and rhetoric, and knowing when to rest your case turns out to be a huge tranche of these arts.

How rewarding it must be to “win” online. Especially when all you have to do is post a single comment then tell yourself “I won!”.

Thank you; it is indeed rewarding. tips hat

Distinguished members of the meta karma crew, when discussing the battle between whom will, erm, find a way, jakear says "nature" and 1attice says "human species" but it must be known, one may win in local time but the other in distant time. It cannot be known who will be right therefore this debate must be called a draw, in spite of the delightful use of a semicolon which was a reward to find, one I needed after having read this sub thread to its very end.

I would love to see your update to this comment after you and your family starves for a while and waiting for something to fill your niche.

There are few fires in desert, so any increase in the amount of plants like increases the chance of fire. But still people usually pref living in green places even if they are more likely to have fire.

> What makes you say it’s damaging?

They say it’s damaging because it promotes wildfires which kill off the other plants.

Of course it’s a moral judgment because Nature has no moral framework. You may be fine in letting “native” species go extinct but others obviously don’t share your opinion and go out of the way to prevent it.

I already mentioned the Western Juniper, a “native” plant which the USFWS actively finances burning. A moral framework where some native species need heaven and earth moved for them to not be burned while other native species need taxpayer dollars to finance their combustion isn’t very appealing to me.

Live and let live, I say.

> Juniperus occidentalis, known as the western juniper, is a shrub or tree native to the Western United States…

Since you obviously don’t understand how these plants have adapted themselves and the role of wildfires to western living I’d suggest, maybe, doing a little research on the subject.

I’m also 100% certain the goal isn’t to actually combust the trees in prescribed burns.

What is it you think I don’t understand, taking into account I have volunteered months of my time on USFWS refuges engaged in the active burning of the Western Juniper, and have conversed at length with biologists involved in the management of said refuges? And have read literal textbooks on said Species. And read hundred+ page reports on the plans for managing said species.

> I’m also 100% certain the goal isn’t to actually combust the trees in prescribed burns.

I’m glad you stated it so plainly, as I can be equally certain you’re dead wrong.

This weed is growing in the low valley, not where junipers are growing.

There are about 4000ft of difference here. The article shows Carefree AZ as an example of infestation, which is at 2400ft. Junipers grow at 6000ft.

I can't believe you're really trying to make the argument that this plant is great because it will burn saguaros or barrel cactuses and we burn juniper on purpose so that must be good for saguaros and barrel cactuses. Don't get defensive. I'm not upset at you. Just think about this argument. It's not a logical argument.

You're saying that if X is good for Y and B causes X' for Z, then B is good. But you have not established that X' is good for Z, and you haven't established that B causes X for Y.

So if this plant doesn't cause fires for Junipers, and if fires aren't good for desert plants, then how the hell are you arguing this plant is good because it causes fires for desert plants?

Don't take my word for it. Ask ChatGPT if this makes any damned sense. Maybe the matrix can convince you that this is an illogical argument.

I brought up the Juniper as an example of a species that, while native, is handled like a “weed”, and subject to expensive taxpayer funded burn-based removal efforts. This was to rebuke the claim the undereducated love to make of “native=good, introduced=bad”.

Have any reputable literature to share that backs up your opinion?

About as relevant as citing the Bible, with respect to this discussion.

Environmental pressure leads to adaptation and speciation. I don’t know what more evidence you want of my claim that a new pressure isn’t necessarily bad for general “quantity” of speciation.

I guess many people would prefer not to live in a world with a dozen species crowding out all of nature's diversity, beyond specific issues caused by this one plant.

True, but as a society we certainly don't act like we care at all about biodiversity.

The thing is though, this is not likely what will happen. It will temporarily crowd out existing vegetation, which will create the conditions for new species to arise. By bringing more carbon into the soil, it will increasing fertility and with that, new forms of life can take place and in turn crowd out the pioneering 'weed', increasing rather than diminishing biodiversity.

Certainly some species will be lost. This is called succession. But others will take their place. I'm not sure if Arizona will have the climatic conditions to move far beyond a desert, but that is what is happening and what we would be preventing.

That process takes a very long time, much longer than it takes for things that exist today to go extinct

When grass evolved it took over the world, killing innumerable species, and decimating ecosystems.

This weed may suck and maybe we want to keep it out of the desert for various reasons... but it shouldn't be dressed up as some kind of nature-preserving virtue. It's just bio-engineering to keep the ecosystem how we want it.

Oh never mind, I guess mass extinction is fine then.

Indeed it is. Every biological renaissance in known history was preceded by a mass extinction event.

If something has happened in the past, that means it’s good and we should do nothing to prevent it from happening again. Indeed, if we ourselves are the main reason it’s happening this time, that’s fine too, since it’s happened before.

It is important when ironically agreeing with someone that the pseudo-agreement expresses your supposed shortcomings.

Otherwise you’re just legitimately agreeing, but snarkily (and weakly).

Hey if you want to wholeheartedly embrace a worldview so nihilistic it doesn't have an answer for why we should try and stop people from doing mass murder, go nuts.

Ah. The non-sequitur approach to debate. Charming.

If you can’t see the difference between allowing a plant to naturally spread and mass murder, I pray for those around you.

You were saying that mass extinction was no big deal, not “allowing a plant to spread,” and the reasoning you apparently embrace would in fact lead to that exact absurd result, so it is not a non sequitur.

It is damaging. The Sonoran Desert is home to plants and animals not found anywhere else on earth. The desert is alive. It is not just some sand in between freeways and stucco houses. These plants spread rapidly and cause more frequent and hotter fires than any that the native plants have evolved with. Just because sometimes fire is good for some life forms does not mean all fire is good for all life forms. I can't believe I even have to explain this to someone. Damn. Some of you just want to argue to argue. Go ask chatgpt to argue with you, or ask google maps for directions and then drive somewhere else. leave the rest of us alone. damn.

> ask google maps for directions and then drive somewhere else

Alright that was pretty funny.

For the rest of it, if all you’re going to do is be mad about making the same (unsupported) “the only correct action is that which minimizes dEnvironment/dt” (aka “native=good, introduced=bad”) claim as everyone else, why bother commenting at all?

It's not just that they are native, it's that they are unique to that location. You are not going to get many people - other than the idealogical zealots like you - to agree that things that can eliminate a species from the planet are a good thing. You probably side with the Rhino Poachers too, because the invisible hand of the free market values boner powder.

The idea of invasive centers on the notion that ecosystems are largely static. But the reality is the environment is dynamic and always changing, with or without humans. Life has always migrated all over the place. There is no ideal state of nature. There's no lasting equilibrium. Yes, humans speed change by giving species a ride to other places. But a new dynamic will be achieved.

Have any reputable literature to share that backs up the opinion of your claimed "reality"?

For those unaware, goats are considered invasive in literally every part of the world. So, username very appropriate.

It is worth noting because it brings more self awareness. The 'weedness' of the plant is a property of human culture, and it is worth exploring what that is. It doesn't mean the 'weedness' doesn't exist: there are many reason we don't like a plant and want to destroy certain plants and some are quite valid, like fire hazards for example.

For example, you quote non-nativeness as a self-evident negative property of the plant. But this is highly debatable. It is not clear at all what nativeness means in the plant world (really) or if it really is undesirable. There are some common ideas around being 'not beneficial to biodiversity' for example, but it turns out plants are relatively quick to adapt and gain relationships.

Dismissing these perspectives as non-sequitur and not worth exploring isn't really contributing to an insightful discussion. I'm not saying weeds are good or something like that, I just want to convince you this actually is worth noting and exploring.

It's not worth noting. There is quite a few people in this thread arguing for the sake of arguing about what a weed is in a thread about a very serious weed taking over very large swaths of habitat.

It's kind of disgusting.

It's not disgusting. It's a question of how we view nature. The idea that we can just preserve ecosystems as they were isn't very tenable. The idea that invasive species don't deserve to be invasive is questionable. We're making all these value judgements about what nature and shouldn't be. But nature has always changed, just depends on the time scale.

And life has always spread into new areas and become invasive. We did so migrating out of Africa. So does an ant colony floating on a log to an island that didn't have ants before. Life colonized the oceans, then it colonized the lands, and it colonizes new islands that popup, and populations shift around as the climate changes and new migration routes become available. The Sahara was a savanna thousands of years ago.

Were not out here trying to ensure a perfect pristine protection of the ecosystem. This is about a toxic weed spreading into areas we don't want it.

Next you'll be telling me we can just keep drilling for oil because humans are animals too.

> a toxic weed

That’s two very loaded terms to apply to an organism which has done nothing more than find a niche in which it excels. Do you have any justification at all to support the slander, aside from the juvenile mantra “native=good; introduced=bad”?

(keep in mind you’re a member of the most disruptive introduced species of all time)

Go live somewhere where tumbleweeds are a menace and your opinion will change very quickly.

Such as Australia, where they are a “native” species (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panicum_effusum)? You’re proving the point you don’t want to be.